Share this

Read more!

Get our weekly email

Enter your email address

David Cameron, Toms Norde, Valsts kanceleja, Wikimedia Commons

In
Brexit, Britain is Divided

On Friday, June
24, 2016 Britain awoke and was forced to look at itself in the mirror. In its
reflection it saw the signs of a society more divided that it had previously
felt comfortable to admit. The Brexit result was not just about the rejection
of the European Union. It also signalled the British people’s unwillingness to
view the world beyond the familiar conception of the nation state, calling into question the country’s social and
cultural unity.

As a country
deeply integrated into the international system, in every sense of the word,
British society is caught in the dilemma of how to preserve a national
identity, in a context of ever expanding globalisation. Put otherwise, it’s
tasked with maintaining its national unity whilst simultaneously managing and
encouraging internal differences. This is both a question of social justice –
by ensuring broad equality – and nourishing
a multi-ethnic society.

With the country
now entering the uncertainty of the post-Brexit era, it is vital that these two
issues are addressed if Britain is to come together as a tolerant, united
society. Yet, looking back over the last six years of government, David
Cameron’s brand of One Nation conservatism has contributed little to this aim.
In fact, it is the very catalyst of the divisions that are staring Britain in
the face today.

* *
*

The frequent use
of military force abroad, and the invariably linked rise in violent attacks on
the innocent in parts of Europe, has certainly inspired a number of societies
across the continent to a return to nation-building. However, the widespread
rise in nationalism that we are
witnessing can be accounted to more than just these security narratives that
have come to the forefront of global politics in recent years. For alone, it
fails to take into account the social dimension – that is, why society’s Left Behind are drawn to nationalism in their bid to recapture
control over a country and identity that they feel has forgotten them.

And they are
forgotten – because while it is undeniable that much of Britain has benefitted
from the country’s presence and ongoing integration into the international
system, the haves have reaped more of
the rewards than the have nots. After
Spain and Greece, the UK has
the third highest income inequality in Europe – a fact many Brits would be
shocked to hear. But what is worse is that this social division is as much
visible by class, as it is by geographic location: of course, referring to the
notorious North-South divide.

Across the
world, the UK is
second only to Russia in the dominance of its capital city over the rest of
the country. London has achieved this position over years of growth and
development. Since 1989, London and the South East’s share of the country’s
production (GVA) has risen from 20% to over 38%. Yet, despite the country’s
capital being one of the largest transactional markets in the world, the wealth
that international integration has attracted has neither ‘trickled down’, nor
been shared to ‘help people out of poverty’. This structural transfer of wealth
to the capital has condemned many communities across the UK to a life of
hand-outs and low-skilled work, as their iconic industries have faded around
them.

London may well
have the international status of a cultural powerhouse, with a vibrant migrant
population of over 36%, but it is by no means representative of the country.
Since 1951, Britain’s foreign born population has risen from 3.5% to 12% – but
this fact is not celebrated in many communities that feel their politicians are
looking beyond their own shores, before looking after their own.

And despite the
promises of a more inclusive society by previous governments, especially those
of David Cameron, each one has failed to do enough. We know this, because
increasingly the electorate has been looking for alternatives, finding the once
peripheral figures of Jeremy Corbyn and Nigel Farage. Now, the popularity of
their (albeit contrasting) positions are undeniable.

And so it
happened that the prime minister gave the electorate their fourth
referendum of his premiership, by which point it was clear that the boundaries
of debate would be set by the nationalist agenda that was growing within
Britain’s divisions. How unsurprising it was, therefore, when the Vote Leave
campaign provided an uncanny impersonation of one of their founding fathers,
the notorious anti-marketeer Enoch Powell. With acute precision, they
irresponsibly exploited social anxieties, normalising their xenophobic
rhetoric.

Cameron failed to create One Nation

An apostle of
Disraeli’s One Nation conservatism, David Cameron entered No. 10 Downing Street
having promised to ‘govern for all’. It was a popular brand of rhetoric,
remaining at the forefront of his addresses even into his second term. While as
a theme it was used to emphasise his Unionist credentials (the Scottish claim
for independence an additional divide to consider), it was also a bid to make
inroads into the electorate of a Labour party that was becoming increasingly
fractured. And in seeking a One Party
Britain, David Cameron sowed the seeds not for a united nation, but a divided
one.

This has led to
an alternative, more harmful conception of the One Nation. In 2011, the prime minister
launched an assault on ‘the failures of state multiculturalism’. He was
referring to a policy approach that maintains a pluralistic conception of
citizenship, protecting the social and political rights of discrete ethnic
groups, and thus institutionalising difference
within a single nation. His move away from the dominance of multiculturalist thought was a much
needed one – such policies only serve to institutionalise sensitive differences.
It should also be recognised, however, that it was also a means of appeasing
the growing nationalistic elements of society – complaints of unfair
preferential rights for minority groups and excessive political correctness were
growing louder – and therefore, it began the legitimisation to the darker parts
of British society.

Soon after his
first electoral success, Cameron introduced the Government’s
2010 Equality Strategy - the cross-party committee for which was chaired by
Teresa May. It promised to do away with the ‘social engineering’ of tick boxes,
instead opting to ‘[recognise] that we are a group of 62 million people’. This
sounded very appealing: both simple and of common sense, and that was its
charm. Or it would have be, if it weren’t accompanied by policies that took a
bold step towards the French model of civic-assimilation,
such as the ‘Life in the UK Test’ for immigrants intending to stay in the UK.
As we are regrettably learning, this alternate approach is as equally ill-equipped
in ensuring a healthy, vibrant multi-ethnic society as the multiculturalist
approach, as Kenan Malik writes.

Simultaneously
enshrining ‘equal rights’ and ‘the right to be different’ is the Catch 22 of
the multi-ethnic society. However, Cameron’s One Nation conservatism was more
of a political tool than a substantive framework for uniting the nation. During
his six years as prime minister, he not only managed to widen the gap between
the haves and the have nots, but critically he prepared
the platform for a Vote Leave campaign that would use British nationalism as
its primary weapon.

May must be cautious when calling for One Nation

David Cameron
has left office with a rather uninspiring mixed bag of successes and failures.
In his wake, Teresa May has seemingly picked up the baton by promising to lead in
the spirit of her predecessor’s ‘one nation government’. However, she
should be wary of the effect that such rhetoric can have, if not accompanied by
genuine political will to address the glaring socio-economic divides in
Britain.

Aside from
ensuring that the UK retains a seat at the table of Europe, May must continue
to promote international engagement and inter-dependence beyond the
Anglosphere. Every country’s future should now lie in a constructive,
outward-looking approach to both external and
internal politics, as opposed to exercising the comforting, but archaic appeals
of nationalism. Most importantly, however, beyond Brexit, she must ensure that
Britain feels united; not under a flag, language or birth right, but as part of
a just and tolerant society.

This article is part of our Reset series. Chip in here to help fund the conversation about how to change Britain for good.